Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.40 seconds)

Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... vs Calcutta Agency Ltd on 21 December, 1950

22,60,596/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of freight charges expenses without giving any reason at his own and simply relying on his earlier years appellate order and even though the assessee had failed to discharge its onus that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and is in contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT(A) vs Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191 (SC) wherein it was held that if the assessee failed to establish the facts necessary to support his claim for deduction u/s 37(1), the claim for deduction of expenditure is not admissible."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 223 - H J Kania - Full Document

R.A. Varma, Assistant Commissioner Of ... vs Laxmi Induction And Ors. on 19 December, 1994

19. Ground No. 12 of the appeal is with respect to the direction of the Ld. CIT(A), 2 not to reduce the profit eligible for deduction under section 80 IA with respect to service charges, unclaimed balances written back, miscellaneous income and scrape sales by 90% while working out deduction under section 80 HHC etc. During the course of assessment proceedings it was found that assessee's claim deduction under section 80 HHC of the income tax act of Rs. 6 48776/- which was restricted by the Ld. assessing officer to Rs. 1 64054/-. The main contention of reduction was the excise duty element and sales tax element which are been included in total turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) appeal has held that the above controversy has been set at rest with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT(A) versus Laxmi machine Works 290 ITR 667. The above aspect of computation of deduction has not been challenged by the revenue. Now only issue remains is whether the income of service charge, unclaimed balances written back, miscellaneous income and scrape sales amounting to Rs. 6 379059/- are required to be reduced by 90% while working out the deduction under section 80 HHC of the act. The claim of the assessee is that these receipts are not in the nature of receipts referred to under section 28 of the act or not in the nature of brokerage commission interest and etc and therefore same cannot be excluded. The Ld. CIT(A) A, has deleted the above reduction in the deduction claimed by the assessee. Relying on the decision of the Central board of direct taxes as well as letter of various decisions CIT(A)ed before him. The Ld. CIT(A) A was further convinced by circular 621 wherein the provisions of finance act (No. 2) has clearly clarified that only those amounts are to be Page 11 of 18 extruded which do not have the element of turnover in them suggests interest commission etc. The Ld. CIT(A) appeal has held that the services are has received by the assessee are in the nature of its usual business turnover and there is no justification for excluding the same for the purpose of working out deduction. He further held so with respect to other receipts such as miscellaneous income and scrape sales. Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also held in 336, ITR 444 the industrial undertaking set up by the assessee was for the purpose of manufacture of steel forging, transmission gears and part and accessories of motor vehicles and the scrap of these items was stated to be a by product of manufacturing process. The activity of forging was "manufacturing" within the ambit of section 80-IB . It was immaterial that the assessee was doing the job of forging also for customers and was charging them on job work basis or on the basis of labour charges. It would still be qualified as carrying on eligible business under section 80-IB. The activities of the assessee were in giving heat treatment for which it had earned labour charges and job work charges. It could thus be said that the assessee had done a process on the raw material which was nothing but a part and parcel of the manufacturing process of the industrial undertaking. These receipts could not be said to be independent income of the manufacturing activities of the undertaking of the assessee and thus could not be excluded from the profits and gains derived from the industrial undertaking for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80- IB . These were gains derived from the industrial undertaking and so entitled for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80-IB . There could not be any two opinions that manufacturing activity of the type of material being undertaken by the assessee would also generate scrap in the process of manufacturing. The receipts from sale of scrap being part and parcel of the activity and being proximate thereto would also be within the ambit of gains derived from the industrial undertaking for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80-IB . In view of this we dismiss ground No. 12 of the appeal of the revenue.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 Ludhiana vs M/S Abhishek Industries Ltd Ludhiana on 27 January, 2015

9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,12,000/- made on account of interest free loan given to the Director of the company in contravention to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT(A), Ludhiana Vs. Abhishek Industries (286 ITR 1)."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1